Wednesday, June 7, 2017

A 4-year-old Lake Isabella girl is getting better at Valley Children's Hospital after being mauled by the family dog. Natalee Spears' surgeon called her injuries some of the worst she's seen in 14 years at the hospital.

She is healing faster than anyone imagined, and she could be going home soon.

On the morning of May 20, Natalee had just finished breakfast when Browser, the family PIT BULL, attacked.

Her stepmother, Tammy Hughes, was in the room.

"I pried his mouth open and was hitting him in the face, trying to get him off of her," Hughes said. "Got him off. He got loose again from me."

Hughes got her out of the room and away from the dog. She said Natlee's face was barely hanging on. Seconds later, she was shocked to see Natalee's resiliency.

"I was scared, holding her," Hughes said. "You don't know it's gonna get fixed, and then she started singing 'You Are My Sunshine' with me."

Natalee was rushed to a Bakersfield hospital, but doctors said she needed a higher level care, so she was airlifted to Valley Children's.

She underwent six hours of surgery to re-attach her face, repair nerve damage, reconstruct her nose and fix her jaw that was broken on both sides.

Fast forward 17 days and Natalee is making plans like any 4-year-old.

"I have an ice cream party," she said.

She's also well aware of her injuries.

"I got a hole, I gotta a hole in my neck," the little girl said.

While Natalee recuperates, Valley Children's is also reintroducing her to animals. The lesson is to teach Natalee that dogs are friendly but to be gentle.

Her surgeon, Dr. Angela Rodriguez, dropped by to check on Natalee.

"We have to see the response of the facial nerve, but thankfully in that area it branches really nicely and it can recover especially in a child as young as Natalee," the doctor said.

Natalee hopes to check out of the hospital Friday.

Rodriguez said Natalee may need more surgeries, but it depends on her recovery in the next six months.

5 comments:

This is why the "all dogs bite" idiocy doesn't hold up. Along with the unprovoked, life-threatening attack on a member of its own "pack" and the need for a life flight for the victim. These things only happen with pits.

I call bullshit on Natalee singing after her face was ripped off and her jaw was broken on both sides.

Is this worth it nutter parents? Is it worth having a pit bull as a pet so it can destroy a child's face for no good reason? And to reintroduce the child to animals to teach her to be gentle, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

No mention of what happened to the mauler. This does not sit well with me.

Dayna & Anon: That's exactly what I was thinking! Singing? Really? And dogs at the hospital? I swear empathy is out the window! People LOVE to talk about how helpful they are and what great ideas they have in a crisis.... everyone lives in a fairy tale except the broken 4 year old who is shouldering WAY too much.

At the end of the interview, the idiot step mother kissed Natalee on the mouth! The poor child said, "Ow." How stupid can you be to kiss a child with stitches all over her face nose? No thought to the risk of infection, or pain?

WHERE IS THE CHILD'S MOTHER?!

Also, the pit bull is no longer in the home, but obviously somewhere else to maul again. WHAT IS WRONG THESE PEOPLE?!!!!

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.